-
Whistleblowers, Leakers, and Spies
I was a Federal government whistleblower, revealing the failure of Iraq Reconstruction at a time when everyone from President Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was praising it as the solution to America’s nation-building expedition in Iraq. I made public information the government wished to keep quiet, though in my case everything was unclassified, albeit hidden away. I gained little from all this, instead being forced into early retirement by my employer the State Department, ahead of being fired or prosecuted. I know from bitter personal experience the difference between whistleblowers, leakers, and spies, all of whom expose what the government wants hidden.
So it was with concern I read in The New York Times that “the Iran war has significantly drained much of the U.S. military’s global supply of munitions, and forced the Pentagon to rush bombs, missiles and other hardware to the Middle East from commands in Asia and Europe. The drawdowns have left these regional commands less ready to confront potential adversaries like Russia and China.” The article is sourced around a few think-tankers, but uses unnamed officials and experts who are saying in broad daylight that the U.S. is running so low on critical munitions that not only is the war with Iran in danger of stumbling, but it has created a global vulnerability our adversaries might exploit. In other words, if you are reading this in Beijing, the U.S. might not be able to decisively shoot back in a scuffle.
Spies steal secrets. Imagine the espionage resources China and Russia devote to trying to learn about U.S. munitions stocks, one of the country’s most closely guarded secrets because of the advantage it gives an adversary. All those intelligence officers out there running ops against logistics soldiers and airmen, all those spy satellites counting delivery vehicles moving into storage facilities, who needs them. Somebody seems to have done the nasty work for them. Journalists should seek truth for public accountability. But when anonymous officials leak operational military vulnerabilities for domestic political agendas, the practical result can look dangerously similar to espionage. They act in the gray zone of our Venn diagram with circles drawn for whistleblowers, leakers, and spies.
Or maybe the Times made up the story based on speculation, taking the White House’s hard repudiation of the article as more “proof” it is true. But if not in this case, how about one of so many others given to the press by insiders that are damaging to the U.S.? How about the stories claiming most U.S. bases in the Middle East are damaged beyond use? Or that our sailors are not being fed properly? Or that U.S. casualties exceed government-released numbers? Or that the FBI is in chaos because Kash Patel is a day drinker, or the same at the Pentagon because Pete Hegseth is an alcoholic? Or the tales from the Oval Office that Trump is deathly ill, suffers from dementia, or had to be stopped from using nuclear weapons in the Gulf? What all those stories, many of them republished from X or conspiracy sites by America’s largest media outlets, have in common is that they are sourced from deep inside the American government, meaning either a whistleblower, leaker, or spy.
Whistleblowers are a special kind of government employee. They act on conscience, learning something due to their unique position that they believe after reflection is so important to the American people that it needs to be disclosed. I got to personally know through a common attorney people like Daniel Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers), John Kiriakou (who blew the whistle on CIA torture), Tom Drake and Bill Binney (who disclosed NSA warrantless spying on Americans years before Ed Snowden). I learned through friends the motivations of whistleblowers Chelsea Manning and Snowden. Each person took a long, personal journey that led them to bring to light what our government was doing in our name. Their decisions were motivated by love of country and not personal gain. They were not political people per se, and did not seek revenge against some president or political party. Most importantly, they, as did I, all signed their real names to their disclosures, knowing that that act alone established credulity, albeit at the price of one’s job if not one’s freedom. They were patriots and had no need to hide behind anonymity.
Of course not all who claim to be whistleblowers are selfless patriots. In one example, a 2019 whistleblower complaint alleged President Donald Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, triggering the first impeachment. Interestingly, the whistleblower worked to remain anonymous in trying to bring down Trump. Critics later argued that the analyst was politically motivated, and the case remains controversial precisely because anonymity made it difficult to judge motives as clearly as with traditional whistleblowers who stand publicly behind their claims. The so-called whistleblower is now the subject of a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.
Leakers are a different breed, and Washington has always been rotten with them. It used to be more journalists were taught to be skeptical of self-motivated leakers, and to judge the value of the information they provide against possible harm to others or the nation. They once understood conscience and judgement needed to be present alongside the First Amendment on the reporter’s side if not the source’s. Not so much anymore.
The key difference between leakers and whistleblowers is motivation. Whistleblowers seek to help the country, by telling, for example, that our government has torn up the Bill of Rights to spy on us. Leakers seek to help themselves by surfacing information, or just malicious watercooler gossip, to destroy a political enemy (the Kash Patel story) or further a political aim (resistance to the Iran war). Leaking often results from personal grievances or the desire to manipulate public opinion, for example, the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v Wade. They do not care who gets hurt along the way, up to and including American troops facing an Iranian enemy empowered by the thought America is running out of missiles. Indeed, hurting someone may be the whole point of the leak. Leakers by and large do not have the courage to stand publicly by what they say, and almost always hide as “anonymous sources.” They count on the drama of their leak to offer credibility, not the willingness to risk their lives, fortunes, and honor.
Leakers rely on anonymity because they seek effect, not accountability; whistleblowers accept accountability often at personal cost because truth, not political advantage, is their purpose.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
How To Get Along with the Military
Despite the utter failure of our reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, one thing is certain: our future wars will continue to feature civilian-military mixed efforts. This is the sadistic high school football coach’s version of “we’re gonna do this over and over until you losers get it right.”Getting along is not easy; military personnel will always vastly out number civilians and so most of the adapting needs to happen on our side of the equation, not theirs. The military has its own culture, which you do not share.
Retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson has an article in Small Wars Journal aimed at helping civilians who work with the US military to understand it. His piece is very good, and worth reading, but does not go far enough. Some additional ideas, in no particular order:
1) Earn respect by being very good at whatever it is you are doing there. Don’t expect second chances to move from the dumb ass to the useful category. Don’t be a know it all either, especially if your knowledge is mostly book learning.
2) 0900 means be there no later than 0845. Don’t operate on civilian time. If you’re late for a movement, you’ll be left behind.
3) If you are entitled to privileges beyond what the military gets, share if you are allowed (sat phone, laptop, movies, books) or keep quiet about it (booze).
4) Follow the rules even if you can get away with not following the rules to earn respect. Shave, keep your hair cut, don’t dress like a slob.
5) Start off formal, work back toward casual. Expect to be invited to call senior officers by their first names. Expect to decline to do so unless in private.
6) Anything to do with real military stuff, such as defensive plans or drills, shut up, pay attention and follow along. Don’t end up dead weight that has to be carried along.
7) Speaking of which, always be able to and always do carry your own gear. Even if you are short, weak and slight, hump what is yours and do not let a soldier carry it for you (they will try). If you can’t carry it, leave it behind. Check how much room you’ll have for stuff on various forms of transport, like MRAPs and different model helos.
8 ) Expect to be tested. Expect things to be thrown your way to see what you’ll do– meet deadlines, help out, or skip things and get away with being lazy. Soldiers have to figure out who they can trust and who they can’t.
9) Socialize. If you are one of many civilians, try hard not to split off into a civilian group at meals.
10) Adopt a sports team if you don’t follow one. There is not a more neutral topic in the military than sports. It’ll be a while before you can argue politics or news, but sports is always a decent topic and opinions are encouraged. You don’t have to be a walking encyclopedia, just be able to join in. Surprise people by being “normal.”
11) Listen carefully to how soldiers complain. Complaining is a right of being in uniform, but you must be careful not to exceed the boundaries, or to make it seem like you are not being cared for.
12) Do not criticize another soldier, even if the troops are doing it. They’re insiders, you’re not. Do feel free to poke fun at yourself to show that you are not an asshole like the last civilian. Just because soldiers of different races can make racial jokes with one another, don’t think you can.
13) If told to wear body armor, or a helmet, or gloves or whatever, just do it. Don’t try to get away with not. There may or may not be a good reason, but that is not your concern.
14) If you don’t understand an acronym, ask. Otherwise people will expect that you understood and expect you to do whatever is expected. Nobody will translate everything for you and as long as they do you are an outsider.
15) Don’t play soldier. Don’t wear military gear you don’t need, don’t over use slang or profanity, don’t pretend to know things you don’t know, or know from books. Be polite and respectful but don’t overdo the Sirs and Ma’ams. Be who you are, though maybe a slightly more laid back and in-shape version of who you are.
16) If you agree to do something, absolutely do it. This is not an environment to say “Let’s get together sometime” without meaning it.
17) Share hardships. Expect to always be offered the best food, the best sleeping arrangements, the ride instead of walking. Decline sometimes, say yes when it seems better than pissing someone off by declining (hard to judge– that’s why you get the big bucks).
18) Special for State Department heroes: don’t ask officers to fetch coffee for you, don’t wear bow ties, don’t speak in passive-aggressive slights, don’t complain when your shoes get dusty, don’t wear white pants to the field, don’t show up without a Powerpoint, don’t ask soldiers to take notes for you, don’t talk about your next assignment to Paris, overall just don’t be a dick and make it harder on the rest of us.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Another Iraq No. 1! (In Dead Journalists)
Iraq racks up another number one finish in a world category, this time in the Committee to Protect Journalists’ (CPJ) 2012 Impunity Index, which spotlights countries where journalists are slain and killers go free. Iraq comes out on top, with 93 unsolved journalist murders last year.Freedom of the Press was one of the US’ goals in going to war in Iraq, bringing them democracy and all. Yep, just last month the White House said “Iraq today is less violent, more democratic and more prosperous—and the United States more deeply engaged there—than at any time in recent history.”
CPJ’s annual Impunity Index, first published in 2008, identifies countries where journalists are murdered regularly and governments fail to solve the crimes. For this latest index, CPJ examined journalist murders that occurred from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2011, and that remain unsolved. Only the 12 nations in the world with five or more unsolved cases are included on the index.
Iraq ranked worst on CPJ’s Impunity Index for the fifth consecutive year and, with more than 90 unsolved murders, its impunity rating dwarfs that of every other nation. Most of the murders occurred as Iraq was immersed in war, but even now, as authorities claim stability, they have failed to bring justice in a single case.
But Iraq faced some stiff competition this round. Garden spot Somalia, gripped by insurgency and crippled by the lack of an effective central government, ranks second worst with 11 unsolved murders. In Sri Lanka, ranked fourth worst, authorities have failed to win convictions in the murders of nine journalists—all of whom reported critically about President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s administration.
So for anyone out there a) still thinking the US accomplished something in Iraq (“it’s still better than under Saddam ya’all!”) and b) the deaths of 4484 American soldiers are somehow justified or c) Iraq is on the road to democracy, go ahead and suck on the CPJ statistics instead.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Buy Peter’s Books on Amazon!
